Phillip Sanders v. Margaret Mims

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: June 21, 2024
• Docket: 23-16088
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 21 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PHILLIP EUGENE SANDERS, No. 23-16088

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:20-cv-00634-JLT-SAB

v. MEMORANDUM * MARGARET MIMS, Fresno County Sheriff; VANG, Correctional Officer at Fresno County Jail,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Jennifer L. Thurston, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 17, 2024**

Before: CANBY, PAEZ, and SUNG, Circuit Judges.

Phillip Eugene Sanders appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his action alleging various federal and state law claims arising from the

medical treatment he received while in pretrial detention. We have jurisdiction

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108,

1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)); Resnick v.

Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A).

We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Sanders’s action because Sanders

failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he suffered a constitutional violation as

a result of an official policy or custom, received constitutionally inadequate

medical care, was excluded on the basis of disability, or experienced intentionally

outrageous conduct causing severe emotional distress. See Lockett v. County of

Los Angeles, 977 F.3d 737, 741 (9th Cir. 2020) (discussing requirements to

establish municipal liability under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436

U.S. 658 (1978)); Gordon v. County of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1124-25 (9th Cir.

2018) (setting forth the objective deliberate indifference standard for pretrial

detainees); Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1022 (9th Cir. 2010)

(explaining that the Americans with Disabilities Act “prohibits discrimination

because of disability, not inadequate treatment for disability”), overruled on other

grounds by Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2016) (en

banc); Hughes v. Pair, 209 P.3d 963, 976 (Cal. 2009) (setting forth elements of

intentional infliction of emotional distress claim under California law).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Sanders further

2 23-16088 leave to amend because amendment would have been futile. See Cervantes v.

Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth

standard of review and stating that leave to amend may be denied where

amendment would be futile).

We reject as unsupported by the record Sanders’s contentions that the

district court was biased against him.

Sanders’s request that this court review specific allegations in the second

amended complaint, set forth in the opening brief, is denied as unnecessary.

AFFIRMED.

3 23-16088